GameStop now offers minimum and recommended system specifications for Battlefield 3, DICE's upcoming military shooter sequel (thanks VG247). There's no indication that these are official, so our minimum approach is to view them cautiously, and our recommended approach is that you do so as well, though the Windows Vista as the minimum OS is accurate, as we've already learned the game will not support Windows XP. Here are the specs:

Console to PC games were delayed because at that time developers actually still tried to make it a good PC experience, and that took its time.

Bwahaha! I think you need to take another look at console-to-PC ports in the 90's. Trust me, they were pretty half-assed. Compared to ports back then, today's ports are awesome. Today's ports usually try to at least take full advantage of mouse and keyboard. Ports of yesteryear were pretty much barebones ports with support for texture filtering and occasionally higher resolutions. The Legacy of Kain series, Shadow Man, Resident Evil 1-4, FF7 & 8, Dino Crysis 2, Devil May Cry 3, Battle Arena Toshinden, Virtua Fighter, Virtua Cop... the list of bad ports goes on and on. Their delays definitely weren't due to a focus on quality. The delays were due to the fact that the developers only developed one platform at a time, so ports didn't start development until after the lead platform was finished. Hell, most ports weren't even handled by the original developers. They were outsourced to the lowest bidder.

Uh, I am not talking about the 90s, I am talking about 2000 to 2006. Console ports in the 90s were horrible, not only because people didnt know how to convert the controls to the PC properly, but also because the console games, except some very few exceptions, in that era were horrible too. They even cut out a lot of features from the console version to make the conversion faster. Even in the timespan I am talking about console ports were horrible mostly, but they got better and better, and you noticed how much they struggle to port games to the PC. Thats why everyone who wanted to release on the PC aswell, made their games PC first and then ported to the consoles or even made a specific console version, since porting was so fucking hard AND TOOK THEIR TIME.There were always bad ports from the console since there were so few of them anyway and nobody knew how to do them properly, but there were also good ones, yeah that was rare, but they showed it was possible. But since the console doesnt really offer a good source, of course they were never really good games.

Sorry if it came over that way, but for me console games are all easily recognizable by their simple gameplay. And that includes the stuff I mentioned most of the time.

Except not all console games have simple gameplay. Fallout: New Vegas is a console game and isn't simple at all. It's more complex and offers more meaningful choice than most PC games. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory was designed for consoles and again, it's just as complex (perhaps even moreso) than Thief.

To quote you: Bwahaha!NV complex? SP TC complex??? Sorry but they are nowhere near being complex. I think you played too much console crap already... Look at real PC games and their complexity and compare them with them. In TC many features were actually cut from the PC version.Its kinda hard to give examples since all we get is console ports nowadays. There are a few, but you should know them. ArmA for example. But I bet thats also why you argue this way. You know very well that there are almost no real PC games anymore to compare with, and since youre only comparing to 10 year old games, that would nowadays be much more complex, I cant really say anything against that and just call on your intelligence and objectivity.

Do PC games have the potential to be deeper and more complex with large, open worlds, dynamic AI and near photorealistic graphics? Sure. But that doesn't mean that all PC games are.

Exactly, but such games would set standards and we are talking about standards here.

Even if that is true, I dont see it being an indicator for anything except a try to show the game from its best side.

Except if that were true, every publisher would always show the PC version because the PC version always looks and runs the best. However, that's not what happens. Publishers show the console versions because they always show the lead SKU and consoles are the lead SKU 99% of the time.

No, they show the ones that look and are best for them.1) As I said its much easier and safer to bring a few consoles to the presentation. Nobody will be able to just jump to the desktop, screw things up or try to steal info from the computer.2) Its much safer to use the polished console version, because in PC versions bugs or instabilities are much, much more common - even nowadays.3) Console versions nowadays dont look much different from the PC versions since the PC versions become more and more gimped (thats also a reason why console ports dont take that long anymore, btw).4) PC gamers are rare compared to console gamers.5) PC gamers are much more critical and thus it would be a problem if they would show shitty console ports where some mouse buttons wont work, the gameplay is extremely simple or other console-typic stuff would be obvious. I mean, why have PC demos become so rare?

Im just saying that there have been more than enough claims in the last years that this or that game has the PC as lead platform or that extra work has been put into the PC version, but almost all of them exposed as just superficially tweaked console ports or PC games with very noticeable console limitations. And those that actually were real PC games, came from developers that were known to make only PC games anyway.

I don't disagree. However, all the evidence suggests that PC is the lead platform for BF3. That doesn't mean that there won't be any console-centric design choices. The Witcher 2 was a PC-exclusive but it has QTEs and a radial menu. Crysis was a PC-exclusive but it had radial menus and regenerating health.

Radial menus being console-typic? Not even I think that.And I am not saying at all that PC games nowadays have adapted much from consoles. Its actually the thing I criticize!As I said, if you think PR talk suggests that, go ahead and base your opinion on that. You should know better.I will trust my experience.

Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!- Mojo Jojo

Console to PC games were delayed because at that time developers actually still tried to make it a good PC experience, and that took its time.

Bwahaha! I think you need to take another look at console-to-PC ports in the 90's. Trust me, they were pretty half-assed. Compared to ports back then, today's ports are awesome. Today's ports usually try to at least take full advantage of mouse and keyboard. Ports of yesteryear were pretty much barebones ports with support for texture filtering and occasionally higher resolutions. The Legacy of Kain series, Shadow Man, Resident Evil 1-4, FF7 & 8, Dino Crysis 2, Devil May Cry 3, Battle Arena Toshinden, Virtua Fighter, Virtua Cop... the list of bad ports goes on and on. Their delays definitely weren't due to a focus on quality. The delays were due to the fact that the developers only developed one platform at a time, so ports didn't start development until after the lead platform was finished. Hell, most ports weren't even handled by the original developers. They were outsourced to the lowest bidder.

Sorry if it came over that way, but for me console games are all easily recognizable by their simple gameplay. And that includes the stuff I mentioned most of the time.

Except not all console games have simple gameplay. Fallout: New Vegas is a console game and isn't simple at all. It's more complex and offers more meaningful choice than most PC games. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory was designed for consoles and again, it's just as complex (perhaps even moreso) than Thief.

Do PC games have the potential to be deeper and more complex with large, open worlds, dynamic AI and near photorealistic graphics? Sure. But that doesn't mean that all PC games are.

Even if that is true, I dont see it being an indicator for anything except a try to show the game from its best side.

Except if that were true, every publisher would always show the PC version because the PC version always looks and runs the best. However, that's not what happens. Publishers show the console versions because they always show the lead SKU and consoles are the lead SKU 99% of the time.

Im just saying that there have been more than enough claims in the last years that this or that game has the PC as lead platform or that extra work has been put into the PC version, but almost all of them exposed as just superficially tweaked console ports or PC games with very noticeable console limitations. And those that actually were real PC games, came from developers that were known to make only PC games anyway.

I don't disagree. However, all the evidence suggests that PC is the lead platform for BF3. That doesn't mean that there won't be any console-centric design choices. The Witcher 2 was a PC-exclusive but it has QTEs and a radial menu. Crysis was a PC-exclusive but it had radial menus and regenerating health.

Its not hard to say, since DICE already said they will be 4 x 4 km max.

Okay. That sounds pretty big to me but I'm not very good with metrics. How big were the maps in BF2?

BTW, where did you get those numbers from? According to this (and several other) sites, the PC version of BF3 will have larger maps than the console versions. That makes sense, given that it will support more than twice as many players.

Big? 4x4 km dont allow that much of tactical options, especially with vehicles and planes.BF2 maps were smaller. PR maps were about as big.That info is running around in forums. I read it myself in some interview myself but I dont remember where. That size was for the PC version.

As for the simultaneous release not suggesting a lead platform: How has it been done in the past 5 years since consoles are the lead platform and how was it before when there were still games that had the PC as lead platform? Go figure.

Back when PC was still the lead platform for a lot of genres, multiplatform development was pretty rare. The vast majority of games were initially platform-exclusive. Ports were eventually made, sure, but they were always significantly delayed. This applied to both PC-to-console and console-to-PC ports. These days, ports are developed while the game itself is being developed. That's what multiplatform development means. A simultaneous release does not equate to console being the lead SKU any more than it suggests that PC is the lead SKU. The only thing it suggests is that the ports were started early in the dev cycle.

Youre mixing things up. PC to console games were only delayed because they were planned and started later, based on PC sales. Yes, the PC was actually used for that at some time.Console to PC games were delayed because at that time developers actually still tried to make it a good PC experience, and that took its time. Of course there were the rare occasion where people whined so much that they decided to make a PC port afterwards, which then turned out to something like Halo.

No its not based on that argument. You just put it that way. Stop putting that crap in my mouth and read my posts again. Those were examples and things that for me define the typical console game. There are a lot of other things that make a PC game out of something. Especially the gameplay and use of power potential. BF3 isnt using anything of it. Its a simple console shooter tweaked a bit for the PC.

You've repeatedly cited linear and highly scripted level design as proof of a console focus. That's simply not true, as proven by that long list of linear and highly scripted games I listed that used PC as the lead SKU.

There are many things that are symptomatic of consolitis: QTEs, huge text and icons, text-based inventories, radial menus, low-res textures, 30 FPS framerate caps, lack of mouse and hotkey support, etc. Linear and highly scripted level design is not one of those things.

Sorry if it came over that way, but for me console games are all easily recognizable by their simple gameplay. And that includes the stuff I mentioned most of the time.That list consists of very old games except for one. Thats no proof for anything, if at all its proof for my side.As I said you completely ignore the PC ACTUAL potentials. You cant compared them to the PC from that timeframe. I mean if that logic was true, we would still play Doom 2-like games.

I don't know if you've been to E3 recently but pretty much all multiplatform games are shown exclusively on console. You'll see X360 and PS3 versions of the games all around but PC? Not so much. Seriously, you won't find any kiosks showing off the PC version. Not a single one. Except for BF3, that is. That was the only multiplatform game being shown on PC. Not only that, but it was only shown on PC. That alone is a pretty good indication that PC is the lead SKU.

Ive never been to E3. Its a little too far from here. Even if that is true, I dont see it being an indicator for anything except a try to show the game from its best side. I never said the PC version would look as bad or worse than the console version. I mean they said they would put more effort in the PC version. So, if thats true, they are just showing the best side of their product. But with the generic games today I completely understand to not show it on the PC since it looks almost the same on PC as it looks on consoles, and its much less effort and actually cheaper to bring a console to an exhibition instead of an PC. Not to mention for gameplay testing purposes, since especially in the US PC gaming is just a small fraction of console gaming.

Im just saying that there have been more than enough claims in the last years that this or that game has the PC as lead platform or that extra work has been put into the PC version, but almost all of them exposed as just superficially tweaked console ports or PC games with very noticeable console limitations. And those that actually were real PC games, came from developers that were known to make only PC games anyway.

Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!- Mojo Jojo

Its not hard to say, since DICE already said they will be 4 x 4 km max.

Okay. That sounds pretty big to me but I'm not very good with metrics. How big were the maps in BF2?

BTW, where did you get those numbers from? According to this (and several other) sites, the PC version of BF3 will have larger maps than the console versions. That makes sense, given that it will support more than twice as many players.

As for the simultaneous release not suggesting a lead platform: How has it been done in the past 5 years since consoles are the lead platform and how was it before when there were still games that had the PC as lead platform? Go figure.

Back when PC was still the lead platform for a lot of genres, multiplatform development was pretty rare. The vast majority of games were initially platform-exclusive. Ports were eventually made, sure, but they were always significantly delayed. This applied to both PC-to-console and console-to-PC ports. These days, ports are developed while the game itself is being developed. That's what multiplatform development means. A simultaneous release does not equate to console being the lead SKU any more than it suggests that PC is the lead SKU. The only thing it suggests is that the ports were started early in the dev cycle.

No its not based on that argument. You just put it that way. Stop putting that crap in my mouth and read my posts again. Those were examples and things that for me define the typical console game. There are a lot of other things that make a PC game out of something. Especially the gameplay and use of power potential. BF3 isnt using anything of it. Its a simple console shooter tweaked a bit for the PC.

You've repeatedly cited linear and highly scripted level design as proof of a console focus. That's simply not true, as proven by that long list of linear and highly scripted games I listed that used PC as the lead SKU.

There are many things that are symptomatic of consolitis: QTEs, huge text and icons, text-based inventories, radial menus, low-res textures, 30 FPS framerate caps, lack of mouse and hotkey support, etc. Linear and highly scripted level design is not one of those things.

I don't know if you've been to E3 recently but pretty much all multiplatform games are shown exclusively on console. You'll see X360 and PS3 versions of the games all around but PC? Not so much. Seriously, you won't find any kiosks showing off the PC version. Not a single one. Except for BF3, that is. That was the only multiplatform game being shown on PC. Not only that, but it was only shown on PC. That alone is a pretty good indication that PC is the lead SKU.

I was more talking about the dumbed down gameplay, generic scripted gameplay and again only small and limited maps, and there is no question that todays console shooters really overdo their scripted shit.

Once again, highly scripted and linear gameplay does not mean a game is designed for consoles. MoH:AA and CoD1 were highly scripted and linear and designed for PC.

Once again, they are very old games.

As for small maps, hard to say. EA hasn't shown much of BF3 multiplayer yet. However, DICE has confirmed that the PC version of BF3 will have more than double the player limit of consoles (64 vs 24). That's a pretty significant difference, so I assume that the maps are designed for 64 players and thus appropriately sized.

Its not hard to say, since DICE already said they will be 4 x 4 km max.

DAO was delayed about year so that the console version could be released at the same day because they decided so late to make it for consoles aswell. And you saw what they did to DA2, thanks to the consoles. Anyway, that would suggest that BF3 is already complete on either the PC or console. You think that?

No. As you said, DAO was a PC-exclusive for years until EA bought Bioware and decided to make it multiplatform. The game was essentially finished for PC before development started on the ports. However, that's not how most multiplatform games work. In most cases, development of the ports starts early in the dev cycle to ensure a simultaneous release for all versions. As such, a simultaneous release does not suggest any specific lead platform. It suggests only that development of the ports started early in the dev cycle.

Exactly, did you forget you brought up the DAO example?As for the simultaneous release not suggesting a lead platform: How has it been done in the past 5 years since consoles are the lead platform and how was it before when there were still games that had the PC as lead platform? Go figure.

Your entire argument is based on the fact that the single-player portion of BF3 is linear and scripted. I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of PC games that are linear and scripted. HL1 &2, MoH:AA, CoD1, MoH: Pacific Assault, Prey, Quake 4, FEAR, NOLF1 & 2, Portal, Doom 3, Call of Juarez, RtCW, Metro 2033, etc. Conversely, there are a lot of games designed for consoles that have open-ended and dynamic gameplay. Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Just Cause 2, GTA4, Saboteur, Bioshock, etc. Just because a game is designed for PC does not mean it will be open-world with sophisticated AI and deep, complex gameplay.

No its not based on that argument. You just put it that way. Stop putting that crap in my mouth and read my posts again. Those were examples and things that for me define the typical console game. There are a lot of other things that make a PC game out of something. Especially the gameplay and use of power potential. BF3 isnt using anything of it. Its a simple console shooter tweaked a bit for the PC.

Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!- Mojo Jojo

I was more talking about the dumbed down gameplay, generic scripted gameplay and again only small and limited maps, and there is no question that todays console shooters really overdo their scripted shit.

Once again, highly scripted and linear gameplay does not mean a game is designed for consoles. MoH:AA and CoD1 were highly scripted and linear and designed for PC.

As for small maps, hard to say. EA hasn't shown much of BF3 multiplayer yet. However, DICE has confirmed that the PC version of BF3 will have more than double the player limit of consoles (64 vs 24). That's a pretty significant difference, so I assume that the maps are designed for 64 players and thus appropriately sized.

DAO was delayed about year so that the console version could be released at the same day because they decided so late to make it for consoles aswell. And you saw what they did to DA2, thanks to the consoles. Anyway, that would suggest that BF3 is already complete on either the PC or console. You think that?

No. As you said, DAO was a PC-exclusive for years until EA bought Bioware and decided to make it multiplatform. The game was essentially finished for PC before development started on the ports. However, that's not how most multiplatform games work. In most cases, development of the ports starts early in the dev cycle to ensure a simultaneous release for all versions. As such, a simultaneous release does not suggest any specific lead platform. It suggests only that development of the ports started early in the dev cycle.

Your entire argument is based on the fact that the single-player portion of BF3 is linear and scripted. I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of PC games that are linear and scripted. HL1 &2, MoH:AA, CoD1, MoH: Pacific Assault, Prey, Quake 4, FEAR, NOLF1 & 2, Portal, Doom 3, Call of Juarez, RtCW, Metro 2033, etc. Conversely, there are a lot of games designed for consoles that have open-ended and dynamic gameplay. Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Just Cause 2, GTA4, Saboteur, Bioshock, etc. Just because a game is designed for PC does not mean it will be open-world with sophisticated AI and deep, complex gameplay.

Esoteric wrote on Jul 8, 2011, 12:51:Wow, I didn't realize it was DirectX 10/11 only (no XP). This a pretty big game to do that. I just upgraded last year to Win7 64bit, thankfully. A little late to the party, I know.

Where did I say they were invented by consoles??? Sigh indeed.....I was more talking about the dumbed down gameplay, generic scripted gameplay and again only small and limited maps, and there is no question that todays console shooters really overdo their scripted shit. No AI at all.Just because 10 years ago the average PC FPS looked like the console FPS today, doesnt mean it still would be PC game now. The PC has far more potential than those limited maps, simple gameplay, and scripts instead of AI. Yeah, the graphics are a bit better, but if you look closely you will see that they are limited just like on every other console shooter. There is no huge view distance, there is no real open world, there is no freedom. Its BF1942 with better graphics, a different theme and a few tweaks.

DAO was delayed about year so that the console version could be released at the same day because they decided so late to make it for consoles aswell. And you saw what they did to DA2, thanks to the consoles. Anyway, that would suggest that BF3 is already complete on either the PC or console. You think that?

Sorry to hear you havent noticed that games that use the PC as lead platform were almost nonexistent for 5 years, especially on AAA titles. And now all of the sudden that changes in an *EA* game? IN AN EA GAME? As I said, if you have reasons to believe that crap, go right ahead. We will see when its released. I dont have any reasons at all from experience. I also dont see anything that suggest that it is indeed a real PC game except for some PR-phrases that said they would put more love in the PC version than normally.

Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!- Mojo Jojo

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 10, 2011, 02:52:Yeah and I dont believe that. Sorry, but for a real PC game it would show much better gameplay. So far it only looks like another heavily scripted CoD with just a little better graphics. Also, if it was a real PC game, the console versions would be released months after. But they are released at the same day. Especially since they act as if they dont show any console footage, that is very fishy.I have no reason to believe anything they say. Have you?

Sigh. Heavily scripted shooters were not invented by consoles. Remember Medal of Honor: Allied Assault? Or the original Call of Duty? Both completely scripted and linear and both PC-exclusives. The SP portion of BF3 is completely scripted and linear because it's trying to cater to the people who enjoy CoD SP. That, and linear and scripted games are more cinematic and thus easier to market.

I'm not really sure I follow your logic on the delayed console releases. The PC versions of multiplatform games are typically released on the same day as the console versions, even though X360 is the lead SKU 99% of the time. A simultaneous release only suggests that the ports started development early in the project. Dragon Age was designed for the PC but it was released on the same day as the console versions. Are you going to try and argue that PC wasn't the lead SKU for DAO too?

And how is it fishy that they are primarily using the PC version for marketing purposes? Doesn't that suggest that the PC version is the focus? The lead SKU for any given game is generally the most polished. Marketing also tends to focus on the platform that they believe will sell the most copies. That's why most games use X360 for marketing. However, the lead SKU for BF3 is PC, which is why they are using PC for marketing.

Yeah and I dont believe that. Sorry, but for a real PC game it would show much better gameplay. So far it only looks like another heavily scripted CoD with just a little better graphics. Also, if it was a real PC game, the console versions would be released months after. But they are released at the same day. Especially since they act as if they dont show any console footage, that is very fishy.I have no reason to believe anything they say. Have you?

Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!- Mojo Jojo

EA talks lots of crap when the day is long enough. What counts is if it is the lead platform and thus developed directly for the PC and then ported to console. Which it isnt.

Uh, have you actually been keeping up with the game at all? PC is very obviously the lead SKU. 99% of the screenshots and trailers come from the PC version. The version shown at E3 was the PC version. DICE has even stated the PC is the lead SKU. Want to know why EA has shown almost nothing of the console versions yet? Because they aren't the lead SKU.

EA is asking for a fairly recent PC to play their game. but are they going to provide an experience worthy of the requirement? will they make larger MP maps for the PC or are we going to get truncated versions like the consoles? the MP maps they have demoed so far only shows a COD like map. close quarters for a few players. not the 32 vs 32 we normally see on a battlefield game.

entr0py wrote on Jul 9, 2011, 03:34:I imagine that excluding dx 9 was just a business decision. Only a fraction of the game's sales will be on the PC, and only a fraction of PC sales will be to people still running win XP.

For comparison, gamrReview.com puts console sales of BFBC2 at 5.25 million and PC sales at 0.62 million. Meanwhile a steam survey from june reports that only 20% of gamers are still using win xp. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ And I would guess that the gamers still running on win xp tend to have lower end hardware as well, which might not be able to handle BF3 in the first place.

What you need to look at is the numbers of people with vista+ and dx10+ capable cards. Thats only about 66% of average gamersThey are giving up about a third of their potential market by doing this.

jacobvandy wrote on Jul 8, 2011, 22:59:I applaud DICE for pushing the envelope and designing a game that doesn't pull any punches. XP/DX9 support is a liability at this point, technology doesn't move forward when you're worried about accommodating a TEN-YEAR-OLD operating system. Spend the $150 to upgrade your dinosaur of a PC to Windows 7 and DX10.

I think its going to be a little more than that if the PC is older, it probably doesn't have any PCI-express graphics card slot. Which means new mobo which means it needs new CPU & new memory & new power supply & new hard drive all to get a new graphics card. Might as well just build a new system.

Building a gaming system isn't that expensive though, less than $500 would do it.

PacoTaco wrote on Jul 8, 2011, 19:51:EA just fucked themselves on this one, the stock should drop after the forecast is cut by 50%. No XP, FU EA!

i can sympathize with the XP users. why is it that EA can make the game run on the 360 and PS3 which basically have the same visuals as DX9 while PC users are forced to upgrade to vista. at least allow XP users to turn down the visuals to console levels in order to play the game.

Err, maybe you missed the PS3 demo they played on Jimmy Failon. It is a very obvious downgrade in visual quality

yes i saw the PS3 demo. its plastered all over youtube. thats why i suggested they allow XP users to turn down (downgrade) visual quality to console (360/PS3) level.

I imagine that excluding dx 9 was just a business decision. Only a fraction of the game's sales will be on the PC, and only a fraction of PC sales will be to people still running win XP.

For comparison, gamrReview.com puts console sales of BFBC2 at 5.25 million and PC sales at 0.62 million. Meanwhile a steam survey from june reports that only 20% of gamers are still using win xp. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ And I would guess that the gamers still running on win xp tend to have lower end hardware as well, which might not be able to handle BF3 in the first place.

jacobvandy wrote on Jul 8, 2011, 22:59:I applaud DICE for pushing the envelope and designing a game that doesn't pull any punches. XP/DX9 support is a liability at this point, technology doesn't move forward when you're worried about accommodating a TEN-YEAR-OLD operating system. Spend the $150 to upgrade your dinosaur of a PC to Windows 7 and DX10.

And again folks... this has already been debunked as FAKE. These ARE NOT the system requirements of BF3.

It was confirmed by DICE months ago that DX9 (and thus XP) is not supported by Frostbite 2.0.